zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Timeline/Archive 1
I Removed >>>Oot was most likely between The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II.<<< This is wholly inappropriate conjecture and is proven wrong by the in-game events of OoT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.52.139 (talk • ) Is this 'timeline theory' based on ANYTHING? Because the vast majority seems to be guesswork, and doesn't really belong in this article. Happyjoe5 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC) : I don't know if it's based on anything but I do think it should be moved to the Timeline Theory page any objections? Thai420 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC) That's probably the best place for it... It's not that I have anything against timeline speculation, it's just that as this one is on this page and the rest are on the 'Theory' page it implies that this specific one is fact. Happyjoe5 11:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC) I am tired of seeing this phrase mistranslated so many times: 『時のオカリナ』から百数年後の世界です。 This wiki's translation says "In a world some hundred years after 'Ocarina of Time.'" This is incorrect. The phrase 百数年 means "several hundred years," NOT "some hundred years" or "a hundred and something years." If you want to see for yourself, copy/paste the phrase into WWWJDIC. At least the article's body is correct. I'm changing the translation at the bottom. It's also worth noting that someone on The Hylia made the original translation error. They used different wording, but it was effectively the same mistake. Radien 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC) AVGN timeline The Angry Video Game Nerd just made a video of how he's very confused about the Timeline of zelda :It was actually old, he just re-released it. It can be seen on GameTrailers. I get what you mean though, it would be nice if his timeline was included on here.--Richard 00:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Phantom Hourglass The section under this game needs to be moved or rewritten. It contains very little info about the game. Hellkaiserryo12 OoT Sages/Zelda II "Presumably, the towns in Zelda II were named after the sages from OoT as a result of their fame." I think it's important to point out that being a Sage is not necessarily where the town names came from (because it makes Zelda II viable in either "fork" of the split-timeline, as opposed to only the Adult Link time). Two towns in Zelda II were not used as Sages in OoT: Kasuto, which to my knowledge has gotten no other reference, and Mido. Mido, you may recall, IS a character in OoT, but he is not a Sage. He is leader of the Kokiri. Then there is Impa, who is a Sage but is not a town name (Zelda II has its own Impa character). Most of the OoT Sages are pretty significant characters before being awakened as Sages, they could have attained adequate fame in their normal lives in the Child Link timeline. Mido doesn't exactly set the bar high. Anonymous 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Oracles Placement I find the alleged placement of Oracles after LttP to be very one-sided and presumptuous. Most of the points linking it to LttP would apply just as well to a Zelda II sequel, and there are several points that could further solidify a link with Zelda II. The existance of Impa (absent from LttP), the thematic similarity of sacrificing one of the legendary recurring characters to resurrect Ganon (Link in Zelda II, Zelda in Oracles), and the fact that each Triforce part has their own pedestal (seemingly indicates that they were retrieved separately, as in the LoZ/Zelda II story). Perhaps strongest of all is the use of the Triforce mark on one's hand to indicate a chosen hero, and NOT one who has actually obtained a Triforce part. Zelda II used the Triforce mark in the same way. Anonymous 17:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Change of Terms in Twilight Princess? "The state of the Triforce is not certain in this game as the marks that appear on the hands of Link, Ganondorf, and Zelda are never referred to as the Triforce, and bear more similarities to the marks of the Triforce in other games where Link doesn't have one of the pieces, but is granted special abilities from the mark, as seen in Oracle of Ages/Seasons and Adventure of Link." That is an extremely arguable statement. Oracles and Zelda II use the mark of the Triforce to indicate a chosen hero, whether such would apply to Zelda is debatable and it most certainly should not apply to Ganondorf. Furthermore, each character's mark shows a respective piece highlighted over the other two, the same appearance used in games such as OoT where the Triforce parts were divided up, while such a phenomenon was never observed in Zelda II/Oracles. The fact that they are not referred to as the Triforce says very little, as the term "Triforce" doesn't appear in TP at all. Recall in OoT that the mark of the Triforce of Courage is still on child Link's hand in the ending. If the Triforce remained split in the child Link time due to events of the adult Link time, it would go a long way to explaining the "divine prank" witnessed by the Sages. The loss of the term "Triforce" does not mean much if they've been passed down by people who, save for Link and possibly Zelda, have no idea where they came from, and who probably had no idea what would happen to the parts once the original holders, passed on. Anonymous 18:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Jared of hyrule 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)±02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Jared of hyrule 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Campfire Timeline Honestly, the theory I believe would make the most sense would be the Campfire Timeline. Not all of the games happened, in case it's very much possible that none of the games happened and these are just stories that travelers in either a separate universe or the actual Hyrule simply tell one another aroud a campfire. Perhaps the story even gets changed from traveler to traveler just like a real story does. That would explain the similarities in geography and characters in all of the Zelda games, i.e. There's always a Death Mountain, the characters are always Link, Zelda, and Ganon, the first key items almost always come in threes, technology never quite advances as far as it should for sophisticated human beings. What do you all think of it? jared of hyrule: i agree, but in order to get a story, something has to happen so I belive that OoT happened and the rest of the games are mere renditions of the story teller, adding different versions of the story for each storyteller depending on the enviroment of which they told it. For example: sailors would tell of WW link because it would soothe the sailors during hard times. or they tell of Majoras mask link if their government is in a crisis of staying in something, or leaving something, like in the carnival. Yes? No? i think its yes I beleave the MInish Cap is not the first one. Hello, i been playing the zelda games, never really paying attention to the timeline. However recently thanks to a friend i started thinking and looking up the accepted theories, but i have a problem, i can't back it up, but i think it makes more sense than having the Minish Cap as the first Zelda. At the end of Wind Waker toon Link uses the master sword to seal ganon, leaving it in his had as a form of seal. Lets say couple of years have pass, hyrule was drain. Ganon defeated for good, hopefully not, i want them to keep making them. Since ganon was defeated, all evil was supposely vanquished with him, at least that was the point of the big flood. So in the minish cap released evil, and a new sword was made. Wich would make sense since in W.W. all evil was reseal. I haven't played the phantom hourglass because i dont have a DS. But i think the minish cap happens after WW and PH. Makes sense why use a new sword, when if it was the first game, why not reuse the Master Sword unless it was lost. Darkzide121 I do lack proof and i guess the little i have doesn't make much sense, but its really hard to swallow that, i think people should at least agree the minish cap without a doubt is the first game in the "Four Sword" series, so it shouldn't be seperated from the other games. And in four sword adventure ganon appears so guess thats another part wich i'm skeptical about. If i remember right thou, in the beguining of the minish cap Ganon appears in the windows, i mean how many huge ugly evil pigs exist besides ganon, and the hero using something looking like the master sword. sorry i just dont agree with the minish cap being the first game. - Darkzide121 You know are little freind here might be on to something. It directly states in Phantom Hour Glass that Bellum created all the monsters in the game from the sand of hours. Oni Link 16:26, November 10, 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a future game will be produced taking place before Minish Cap, but all the current games take place after it? ---Phazonfish Do we really need all this? from the miyamoto oreder page it has two links in related pages. the legend of zelda time line and time line theorys. they both lead to the same page... this one Oni Dark Link Heres a theroy in stead a split time line branching into two different times what about ocerina of time being a focal point leading to nearly all other games. what i mean is that ocerina of time didnt have a set out come. that several differnt things happened resulting in several differnt turn outs. example. instead of leaving the sacrad realm ganondorf becam trapped there leading to a link to the past. another example could be the plan failed with out links helo which lead to twilight princess. think about it (i havnt thought very throughly myself though because i have a set time line that i have to believe in). Oni Dark Link 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC) deaths i am personaaly not a believer in the multiple ganon theory but what have other people made of the fact that he has four clear deaths and only one rebirth? even with the split timeline that leaves one death unaccounted for. plus he might even die at the end of the oracles series its not clear what happens to him. Oni Dark Link 19:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC) It Doesn't Exist... NOA just confirmed that there is no Zelda timeline. You can even email them if you don't believe me. Should we just delete the article? --Nunovanhalen (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC) if that has been truly confirmed then im delighted but nonetheless the timeline is greatly debated and just pure fun to make. it also has been referenced to repeaditly by miyamoto and anouma during interviews and nintendo of america isnt truly nintendo like it is in japan. Oni Link 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)